daphne Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Going to HR is not wise. Even if the guy got fired, she would be a pariah. I was a pariah for going to HR in the first place. It was pretty bad. This is my observation from working around all men for the past 20 years. What she is going through, I've been through myself. Then I guess you get why it's so easy to shut down and stop being nice to guys who treat a hello and a smile as a subtle come on.
dasein Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Then I guess you get why it's so easy to shut down and stop being nice to guys who treat a hello and a smile as a subtle come on. The more I hear, the more it sounds like you should sue them, and that you would prevail.
daphne Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 The more I hear, the more it sounds like you should sue them, and that you would prevail. I really appreciate your concern. It's rare that a male understands that what happened is wrong. I often find guys have the mentality of the kid that's wondering if his gf getting hit on is her fault. However, the statute of limitations has passed on previous incidents and I would have to give the new HR guy an opportunity to resolve the newest situation. Currently, I avoid the worst guy and get up and leave my work area. I tell him to stop doing creepy things. If he continues, I think I will have to carry it further. I'm hoping it doesn't get to that. I've become more assertive with letting the offender know that I'm not an easy, quiet target.
dasein Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Well, I also abhor lots of the "SH fishing" that goes on, and with history in HR, and HR clients today, have seen lots of it. But the legitimate claims stick out like a sore thumb. If you worked in any other industry, you would find more competent handling of such matters IMO. Good luck whatever you decide to do.
ThsAmericanLife Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Daphne... I agree with you about your approach... I'd also encourage you to document things. That has a liberating effect right there... the idea that you COULD use the information if you really wanted to. I'd also consider befriending the other women who might be subject to the same treatment there.... very carefully though. Once you do, you can encourage them to document things as well. There is strength in numbers. If you were to sue, I would never do it alone. Notice how Herman Cain's credibility took a steep nosedive the minute there was more than one or two women making the same claims. Also notice that Clarence Thomas 'got the job' . Anita Hill started a movement. I'm grateful to her for that. But she paid a very high price. This is the same advice I'd give a man, BTW, if the situation was reversed.
ThsAmericanLife Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Then I guess you get why it's so easy to shut down and stop being nice to guys who treat a hello and a smile as a subtle come on. I do. Very much so. It took me a very long time to stop internalizing and holding myself responsible for THEIR behavior. I'm not going to stop being a friendly, happy person just because someone else decides to be a jerk. I also came up with some pretty effective ways to shut it down without having to go the HR route myself. If you want to PM and talk more, let me know.
dasein Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Anita Hill started a movement. I'm grateful to her for that. But she paid a very high price. No she didn't "start a movement," she participated in a political hatchet job, SH cases were well known and established long before the Thomas confirmation. And no she didn't pay a very high price, she became a celebrity, and remains so to this day. I know you will think I'm singling out your posts, I'm not, nor am I a republican.
Star Gazer Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 No she didn't "start a movement," she participated in a political hatchet job, SH cases were well known and established long before the Thomas confirmation. Having practiced 8 years of employment litigation prior to joining the public sector, I disagree. While SH existed, most women did not pursue their cases prior to Hill coming forward. The first major sexual harassment suit won was just 7 years prior in 1984. But Hill's very public accusations made more women much more comfortable coming forward, and complaints made to the EEOC, DFEH and other state regulatory bodies regulating workplaces multiplied in Hill's wake.
dasein Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Having practiced 8 years of employment litigation prior to joining the public sector, I disagree. While SH existed, most women did not pursue their cases prior to Hill coming forward. The first major sexual harassment suit won was just 7 years prior in 1984. But Hill's very public accusations made more women much more comfortable coming forward, and complaints made to the EEOC, DFEH and other state regulatory bodies regulating workplaces multiplied in Hill's wake. Not caring one whit about your employment litigation history, Anita Hill started a "movement" only among "lottery seekers," the plaintiff's bar and in the feminist mythology. In the real world, she participated knowingly in a fraudulent political hatchet job. No idea how you are defining a "major sexual harrassment suit," but even if that were the case, as any employment lawyer should know, most SH cases never go to trial. Edited November 23, 2011 by dasein
Queen Zenobia Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Not caring one whit about your employment litigation history, Anita Hill started a "movement" only among "lottery seekers" and in the feminist mythology. In the real world, she participated knowingly in a fraudulent political hatchet job. No idea how you are defining a "major sexual harrassment suit," but even if that were the case, as any employment lawyer should know, most SH cases never go to trial. Well, to be fair most litigation and employment legislation is about "lottery seekers" and people engaging in general nonsense. SH isn't any different.
dasein Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Well, to be fair most litigation and employment legislation is about "lottery seekers" and people engaging in general nonsense. SH isn't any different. Fair enough, and if true this bears on whether Anita Hill stands out as some beacon in the darkness for feminism or not exactly how?
ThsAmericanLife Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Having practiced 8 years of employment litigation prior to joining the public sector, I disagree. While SH existed, most women did not pursue their cases prior to Hill coming forward. The first major sexual harassment suit won was just 7 years prior in 1984. But Hill's very public accusations made more women much more comfortable coming forward, and complaints made to the EEOC, DFEH and other state regulatory bodies regulating workplaces multiplied in Hill's wake. This lines up with my memories of things back then too. I also believe that Anita would not have gotten half the flack she did and still does by some if she had another woman... or many women... back her up. So, my original advice still stands. If you can't get a team of fellow witnesses in with you (male or female), don't bother. Edited November 23, 2011 by ThsAmericanLife
Star Gazer Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 No idea how you are defining a "major sexual harrassment suit," but even if that were the case, as any employment lawyer should know, most SH cases never go to trial. 1. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, which was actually decided in 1986, not 1984 as I first thought, was the Supreme Court's first real analysis of what constitutes sexual harassment. 2. Whether a case should go to trial depends not on what kind of case it is, but a myriad of other circumstances. I highly doubt the folks who represented Weeks against Baker & McKenzie would agree that case should have settled...
Recommended Posts